Search This Blog

Friday, September 13, 2019

Three years ago, a 74-year-old Dutch woman with dementia was euthanized by a doctor who drugged the patient's coffee without her knowledge and then had family members physically restrain her for the final lethal injection.

The doctor, who has not been publicly named, was cleared of all wrongdoing by a court in the Netherlands on Wednesday, "clarifying" the country's euthanasia law enacted in 2002 in relation to patients with "severe dementia," according to MedicalXPress.

Patients with dementia can now be killed by their doctors even if they strongly object to euthanasia at the time, so long as they have previously given consent for the fatal procedure. In other words, if a patient were to change their mind about the assisted suicide, a doctor could still legally kill them against their will. "The court ruled that in rare cases of euthanasia that were being performed on patients with severe dementia — and who had earlier made a written request for euthanasia — the doctor 'did not have to verify the current desire to die,'" MedicalXPress reported.

And in the case of this specific Dutch woman with dementia, she never once gave an express request to be euthanized. In her will, which was renewed about a year before her death, the woman said she would like to be euthanized "whenever I think the time is right." And when she was asked if she wanted to be euthanized, she reiterated multiple times that her suffering was not bad enough to where she wanted to be killed:

“The 74-year-old woman had renewed her living will about a year before she died, writing that she wanted to be euthanized ‘whenever I think the time is right.’ Later, the patient said several times in response to being asked if she wanted to die: ‘But not just now, it's not so bad yet!’ according to a report from the Dutch regional euthanasia review committee.”

She was killed, anyway

Part of the rationale for clearing the doctor of drugging the patient's coffee without her knowledge and killing her while she was being physically restrained against her will was in part, according to the court verdict, because "the patient no longer recognized her own reflection in the mirror," the MedicalXPress report said.

As noted by The Daily Wire last August, "A panel had previously cleared the doctor of ethical violations by saying she 'acted in good faith,'" but that decision was overturned by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees. On Wednesday, the doctor was again cleared of wrongdoing.

The Netherlands has become a hotbed for euthanasia particularly among the most vulnerable. In 2017, 83 people with mental illness were killed in the country, as noted by National Review.

"The Dutch plunge into the euthanasia moral abyss continues to accelerate, with the number of patients killed by doctors exceeding 6,000 in 2017. That's more than 500 a month, 100 a week, and 15 a day," the outlet reported in March 2018. "Demonstrating the consequences of accepting the premise that eliminating suffering justifies eliminating the sufferer, Dutch psychiatrists killed 83 of their mentally ill patients in 2017 — up from twelve in 2012 and 43 in 2014."

Keep in mind that these are people who pretend to be morally outraged that some US States still dare to commit justice by executing the most egregious murderers.

Friday, August 30, 2019

Both 'theism' and 'atheism' are affirmations and denials about the nature of reality ... and about the nature of human beings.

[Between the two of them, they cover all possibilities for the nature of reality; there is no excluded middle, there is no alternative third option.]

'Theism' *affirms* that "the ground of all being" is an actually existing mind: a rational Who.

'Atheism' *denies* that "the ground of all being" is an actually existing mind, and contrarily affirms that "the ground of all being" is some set of mechanistically determined states: non-rational whats.

'Theism' does not deny that there are mechanistically determined states; what it denies is the assertion of 'atheism' that such states are the entirety of reality. Thus, 'theism' -- because it definitionally affirms that "the ground of all being" is a rational Who -- has no particular problem with the real existence of the billions of Whos who comprise the human race.

'Atheism' -- because it definitionally denies that "the ground of all being" is a rational Who -- not only cannot explain the reality of human minds, but logically must deny that they really exist at all. [To assert that mechanistically determined states comprise the entirety of reality *just is* to assert that there cannot exist any entities which are not mechanistically determined; that is, it *just is* to to deny that there can exist any beings who are free agents, who are minds.]

'Atheism' is irrational and absurd, and thus is immediately seen to be the false affirmation about the nature of reality.

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

This post and its comment thread is intended to allow for a discussion of the Protestant doctrine of 'sola scriptura', rather than hi-jacking a thread at Neo-neocon.

So, in this OP, I'll duplicate the pertinent parts of some comments from that linked thread.

Roy Nathanson
Just a point…

There is nowhere in the Bible (Old or New Testaments) that expressly proscribes abortion. The absolute forbidding of abortion is an extreme position, when looked at in historical terms.

R.C.
1. Protestants made up a solid majority of the population during the days when serious Christians made up much of the population. Consequently, the assumption called Sola Scriptura leaked into the popular culture: Non-Christians in the U.S. naturally assume that all the content of the Christian religion can be derived from Bible passages (which will state that content with sufficient clarity that the meaning won’t be misunderstood).
...
This is relevant because outside the Protestant world, Sola Scriptura does not exist as an operating premise; it’s considered a weird and self-contradictory 16th-century well-meaning-but-heretical innovation.

Something I find amusing about this particular comment is that R.C. goes on (which I haven't quoted) to contrast 'sola scriptura' ... with an approach which is totally in keeping with 'sola scriptura'.

Ilion:
Crazy me, but I also dream of a day when the bureaucrats of The One True Bureaucracy will stop instructing their flock in false teachings about 'sola scriptura' (especially) and the other Protestant 'solas'.

The fact of this false teaching is especially amusing when one understands that The One True Bureaucracy implicitly endorses 'sola scriptura': does not the the Roman denomination ultimately try to justify all its claims, no matter how questionable, by appeal, no matter how strained, to Scripture?

RC
(Warning: the following reply to Ilion is utterly uninteresting to anyone uninvolved in Protestant-Catholic disagreements. If that ain’t your cup o’ tea, skip it.)

@Ilion:

Thanks for your reply; and I think I kinda like your characterization “One True Bureaucracy.” It has a ring to it, and is (sadly) a fair characterization of one of the worst traits in one segment of the Roman clergy: Too many senior clergy come off more like bank branch-managers than like, say, Athanasius or Thomas Aquinas. They ain’t all like that; but too many are.

That said, I have to disagree with a three of assertions you’ve made (one implicitly):

Assertion #1: “[Catholic bishops] instructing their flock in false teachings about ‘sola scriptura‘ (especially) and the other Protestant ‘solas‘”:

I don’t think that’s accurate, because in my experience Catholic bishops don’t teach Catholics anything about Protestant beliefs, true or false. In fact only the best of them make much strenuous effort to teach Catholics anything detailed about Catholic beliefs. This goes hand-in-hand with my complaint that many of the bishops act more like careerist middle-managers. When it comes to faithful preaching of the Catholic faith, Protestant Billy Graham probably outdid 75% of the current American episcopate.

In response to that, I anticipate you might reply, “Okay, fine, if 75% of your bishops aren’t really teaching, perhaps it wasn’t they, but in my opinion someone has been teaching Catholics something false about ‘Sola Scriptura’, which leads to…

If I have correctly anticipated that clarification, let me grant that, yes, some Catholic teachers have, on occasion, failed to distinguish between Sola Scriptura as held by, say, John Calvin, and the less-defensible “just my Bible and me” approach which makes no reference whatsoever to patristics or liturgical tradition. (One wag used the term “Solo” Scriptura for this latter form.)

My Southern Baptist upbringing makes me sensitive to the distinction, so I’m always quick to point it out whenever I find my Catholic friends conflating the two. One ought not to indulge in straw-manning one’s interlocutors even if they’re atheists; still less if they’re brothers-in-Christ.

Fortunately, I find that the recent (last 30 years) influx of Protestant clergy, lay apologists, missionaries, seminary professors, etc., becoming Catholic has led to a wider understanding. When Catholics have Sola Scriptura described to them these days, it’s by folks like David Anders, Bryan Cross, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, and Scott Hahn. In this way, they get a more-nuanced description than they would if some “cradle” Catholic tried to do it.

Assertion #3: “The One True Bureaucracy implicity endorses ‘sola scriptura‘: does not the the Roman denomination ultimately try to justify all its claims, no matter how questionable, by appeal, no matter how strained, to Scripture?”

Nope. Not in the way you mean.

Catholic apologists argue by the following pattern:
– We’re being told that XYZ is integral to the theological/moral/liturgical content delivered by Christ to the apostles, and by the apostles to their earliest disciples, and they to their disciples, down to the present. But is that accurate?
– Ignore, for the moment, the claim of “divine inspiration” or “inerrancy” of these texts called “the Bible,” and view them (or even just the least-controversial parts of them) as historical witnesses to what the early Christians did, said, and thought. Do they support XYZ ambiguously, or unambiguously?
IF unambiguously, then skip down to the step marked “CHURCH”
IF ambiguously, continue…
– We are unsure whether XYZ was supported by Those Historical Texts or not, because the relevant passages are ambiguous: They can be interpreted in various ways, not all of which support XYZ. How can we exclude some of these competing interpretations?
IF an interpretation is anachronistic in the context of a 1st-century Jewish audience, exclude it (the earlier traditions in the Mishnah and the Dead Sea Scrolls are helpful to understand the assumptions of the initial hearers/readers);
IF an interpretation utterly contradicts the consensus views of the early Christians whom the apostles installed in positions of early Church leadership (a.k.a. the “Early Church Fathers”, exclude it;
IF an interpretation means that true Christianity didn’t exist anywhere in the world for multiple centuries at in the history of Christianity, such that Christ’s promises were thereby proven false and His claim to be even a true prophet (let alone God) were also proven false, exclude it. (After all, the guy rose from the dead, and normal folk don’t do that.)
– What remains, then, among the interpretations still open to us?

Catholic apologists argue that the remaining interpretations include no known forms of Protestant ecclesiology and sacramentology. It’s pretty much down to hierarchical and sacerdotal churches (Catholic, the various Orthodoxes) who claim judicial binding and loosing authority with divine sanction (“He who hears y’all hears Me, he who rejects y’all rejects Me” / “Whatsoever you/y’all bind on earth is bound in Heaven and whatsoever you/y’all loose on earth is loosed in Heaven”).

– “CHURCH”: If you have a church with an authoritative and divinely-sanctioned judicial authority on matters of faith and morals (parallel to the system of judges, tribal overseers, and “seat of Moses” seen during the Exodus) then naturally that Church will do the following:
(a.) preserve (by judicial affirmation) those traditions of faith/morals which come from the apostles;
(b.) allow (by judicial permission) those traditions of men which don’t nullify the word of God, but can contribute beneficially to the lives of the faithful (e.g. fasting on certain days, having Wednesday Night church suppers);
(c.) reject (by judicial condemnation) those traditions of faith/morals which do nullify the word of God (i.e. contradict those preserved by (a.)).

Through that process, the content of the Christian religion (or “Apostolic Deposit of Faith”) can remain objectively knowable (and thus potentially obey-able) in every century from the Ascension to the Second Advent. But which traditions were approved by this process?

– The traditions judicially approved by the Church include:
(d.) apostolic origin (sometimes indirect through scribes or secretaries) of the 27 New Testament books;
(e.) apostolic use of the Septuagint Old Testament canon (including Wisdom, Baruch, Sirach, Judith, Tobid, 1&2 Maccabees, and the disputed parts of Daniel);
(f.) a tradition giving certain books the supreme honor of being read-from aloud from them in the Liturgy of the Word (the first half of the Divine Liturgy, the second half being the Liturgy of the Eucharist);
(g.) a tradition of limiting that highest-honor to only books of apostolic origin or use;
(h.) a tradition of applying the phrase “God-breathed” in Paul to all those highest-honor books, not just the Septuagint Old Testament (which is what Paul was referencing when he wrote that phrase to Timothy);
(i.) a tradition of interpreting “God-breathed” to logically imply “inerrant, given a correct interpretation of the authors’ intended meaning.”

So, by means of that judicial approval, Catholics get a divinely-inspired inerrant collection of 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books, to which they grant the supreme honor of being read aloud from at Mass.

But as you see, this practice required the Church first to exist, and then to have divinely-protected judicial decisions (on such matters), to be able to arrive at confidence about the content of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.

And the Table of Contents of the Bible (the “canon”) is a derivative work of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, arising from the need to know which books should be granted the supreme honor of being ritually read from in the Liturgy.

Now, Ilion, I don’t know how you wish to define the term “Sola Scriptura,” but I don’t know of any popular definition of that term that could possibly be implicitly endorsed by the Catholic understanding.

Peace,

R.C.

Here is the response I have composed to the above --

R.C.: "... and I think I kinda like your characterization “One True Bureaucracy.” It has a ring to it, and is (sadly) a fair characterization of one of the worst traits in one segment of the Roman clergy: Too many senior clergy come off more like bank branch-managers than like, say, Athanasius or Thomas Aquinas. They ain’t all like that; but too many are."

Your objection is fair; and your anticipation of my response is correct.

I interact with a lot of intelligent-and-educated Catholics on the internet. In my experience, perhaps in large part due to where and with whom I interact on the internet, it's almost always a Catholic who broaches this sort of subject (that is, related to our insoluable disagreements), and it almost always involves 'sola scriptura' ... and what those Catholic persons say about 'sola scriptura' is always a gross misrepresentaton.

R.C.: "(One wag used the term “Solo” Scriptura for this latter form.)"

I like that; I'll try to add that to my cache.

R.C.: "... Nope. Not in the way you mean."

And yet, you lay out a series of steps for judging whether "XYZ is [indeed] integral to the theological/moral/liturgical content delivered by Christ" which is, just as I said, "... ultimately [to] try to justify all its claims ... by appeal ... to Scripture."

R.C.: "But as you see, this practice required the Church first to exist, and then to have divinely-protected judicial decisions (on such matters), to be able to arrive at confidence about the content of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.

And the Table of Contents of the Bible (the “canon”) is a derivative work of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, ..."

And there is seen another reason for the phrase, 'The One True Bureaucracy': the Catholic hierarchy is a late Imperial bureaucracy ... which outlived its Empire, and still has not given up on its imperial (and imperialistic) pretentions.

AND, in what you have written there is seen why 'sola scriptura' is so critical; for Catholicism does, indeed, set its bureaucracy above Scripture.

R.C.: "Now, Ilion, I don’t know how you wish to define the term “Sola Scriptura,” but I don’t know of any popular definition of that term ..."

"Firstly, sola scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. It did not mean Scripture was the only authority. ..."

See, this is the very point of contention. On the one hand, the bureaucrats of 'The One True Bureaucracy' say, "*We* are the supreme authority over the souls of all men, for we (and we alone) speak in God's Name." And on the other hand, we Protestants say, "Well, no, you're not. Rather, Scripture is the supreme authority for evaluating all allegations of speaking in God's Name."

And, of course, 'sola scriptura' does have the inescapable consequence, much lamented by those who wish power over the souls of others, of individual liberty-of-conscience and even "Solo Scriptura" error.

(Shoot! Even that font of knowledge and wisdom, the Wickedpedia, does a fair job of explaining 'sola scriptura'.)

R.C.: "... that could possibly be implicitly endorsed by the Catholic understanding."

Oh, it's so much worse that I said initially. When necessary, The One True Bureaucracy will go straight-up hard-core Calvinist -- I was shocked (and amused) when I read the reasoning (at say, the Catholic Encyclopedia) to justify the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Monday, August 19, 2019

A strange thing I've noticed is that persons self-identifying as Christians (or, at any rate, as Catholics) (*) who say things on the internet along the lines of "Religious propositions are both unverifiable and unfalsifiable" or "It's impossible either to prove or to disprove whether God exists" *really* dislike it when one attempts to show that the claim is false.

Of the two or three people who even know of me (on the internet), at least one likes to jeer because I've "had a run-in" with William Vallicella; well, the genesis of that "run-in" was when I tried to show Mr Vallicella and a God-denying friend of his, using reason (without reference to revelation), that their agreement that one can neither prove nor disprove that God is is false.

So, the post immediately prior to this one is another example of that strange phenomenon. I made that content a stand-alone post on my little blog because the blogger to whom I was responding chose not to allow it to appear in the comments of his blog (**).

(*) Similarly, self-identifying 'agnostics' generally seem more angered than self-identifying 'atheists' by the presentation of an argument which seeks to test the question of God.

(**) He had done that previously, so this time I made a point to save the text of my response until I'd seen what he would do.

If one wishes a mild amusement, pop over to the comments section of the linked blog-post.

Sunday, August 18, 2019

... Religious propositions are both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. ...

There is a moral order in the universe, written into its most fundamental laws. That order cannot be the product of vain, capricious, quarrelsome “gods” with no particular interest in Mankind. But it can be the product of a Benevolence that stands above all else, that wants for nothing, and that despite its triune nature suffers no conflict. Indeed, that’s exactly what it is.

The reality of morality is *one* of the ways that we can know that God is. Others have presented these proofs; that's not my purpose here.

The reality of morality shows, via reason alone (without reference to any purported divine revelation):
1) not only that God is;
2) and not only that God is transcendent;
3) and not only that God is personal;
but also, shocking to some, that:
4) God is a multiplicity of persons.

A quick proof of proposition 4) is as follows:

Morality is:
a) interpersonal -- only persons *can* have moral obligations and moral expectations, and only with respect to other persons;
b) relational -- all persons' moral obligations (and expectations) follow from their relationships with/to other persons;

now, because morality is interpersonal and relational, it cannot exist if there are no persons in relationship to one another;
but:
c) Morality is also transcendent -- it is not a created thing; its reality is not contingent upon the existence of human persons.

For instance, if morality were not transcendent, if it were after all a created thing, if its reality were contingent upon the existence of human persons, then knowing what are the moral obligations and expectations between *this* father and his son would tell one nothing about the moral obligations and expectations between *that* father and his son.

Since the reality of morality cannot grounded in human persons, it can be grounded only in divine persons.

So, the real existence of morality shows that there is a *multiplicity* of divine persons. Yet, there is but *one* God; to say that there are two or more Gods is incoherent. Yet again, if there is but one divine person, then morality is not transcendent.

How can this paradox be resolved?

The paradox vanishes IF God is one being and a multiplicity of persons.

This argument does not establish the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, that is, that God is *precisely* three Persons, but it does show that the doctrine is not a self-contradiction. And that is the question of the title.

Saturday, August 10, 2019

Alternate sick joke making the rounds: I was stunned by the news of Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide, though probably not as much as Epstein himself.

==========
On the one hand, enough is publicly known about the sordid details of Epstein's hobby-group that *everyone* knows that powerful people wanted him dead. This will make some sort of conspiracy theory at least rational and credible.

On the other hand, if I were the sort of person who could be brought down by the full facts coming to light — and being that sort more than implies that murder is never off the table — I’d have had him whacked a long time ago. He became a liability when the "Lolita Express" first came to light.

Bob Hood, a former federal Bureau of Prisons chief of internal affairs and former warden at the ADX Florence “supermax” prison in Colorado, said he also was perplexed by the decision to remove the suicide safeguards.

“Under the circumstances, I would have a staff member sitting there or have a camera on him 24/7 while he was in my custody, purely to cover my butt,” said Hood. “I know that sounds tacky, but this is not your average inmate.”

Shoot! I'd have had multiple cameras watching Epstein, and cameras watching the cameras, and people physically watching Epstein, and cameras watching the people physically watching him, and people watching the cameras ... and cameras watching *them*.

Jeffrey Epstein was found hanging in his lower Manhattan jail cell with a bedsheet wrapped around his neck and secured to the top of a bunk bed, The Post has learned.

The convicted pedophile, who was 6 feet tall, apparently killed himself by kneeling toward the floor and strangling himself with the makeshift noose, law enforcement sources said Monday. He hadn’t been checked on for several hours, sources said.

Now *that's* commitment -- not only to "hang" yourself when merely standing up will abort the hanging, but to "hang" yourself with a sheet that's essentially tissue paper.

====
EDIT 2019/08/14:
OK, the bit about the sheet being essentially tissue paper was a tongue-in-cheek reference to his having been removed from "suicide watch" mere days after allegedly trying to kill himself a couple of weeks ago.

Look, it's impossible to commit suicide in the manner described unless you first ensure that you are unable to free yourself. When the carbon-dioxide level in your lungs passes a certain threshhold, your body automatically enters a panic mode which overrides any conscious decision to kill yourself by asphyxiation.

So, if he did indeed kill himself in the manner we are being told, then he managed to do it only because he couldn't free himself. And that means either:
1) that he had used the sheet to rig a complex system which:
- cut off his air-supply
- prevented him from moving in such a way as to relieve the pressure which was cutting off his air-supply
2) he was already unconscious when the asphyxiation itself began

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

K T Cat:Ta-Nehisi's Inverse -- "In a substantive way, the Left screaming about racism is just the Left screaming at itself."

K T Cat links to a tweet by one Sissy Willis, saying --

"Vox Day says the alt-right is conservative. It’s actually an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, & other products of @CulturalMarxism." … "

My comment -

Actually, VD emphatically denies that "alt-right" is conservative -- he *despises* conservatism [and conservatives] -- so, that's one of the few times he's honest.

And, yes indeed, "alt-right" *is* "actually an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, & other products of @CulturalMarxism." Or, to put it another way, it's just another variant of collectivism ... which is left, not right.

The "alt-right" is just as inimical to individual liberty as any other variant of leftism is.

According to information in a police report, it was the accuser–a Georgia state legislator–who uttered an allegedly racist phrase to a fellow shopper at a grocery store.

That news from the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Rep. Erica Thomas originally claimed a “white” man confronted her when she had too many items in an express lane and hurled racist insults at her including “Go back to your country” or “Go back where you came from.” . . .

"A Publix employee told a Cobb County officer that she witnessed part of the conversation and heard Thomas “continuously tell Eric Sparkes to ‘Go back where you came from!”’ but did not hear Sparkes utter those words to Thomas." -- Atlanta Journal Constitution

This is my shocked face. As it turns out, I already knew when I first wrote this post that he -- a Trump-hating Democrat, himself -- hadn't ordered her to "Go back where you came from!”. What I didn't know at the time, and am not at all surprised to learn, is that *she* issued that command to him.

Also, I'm not at all surprised to learn that she "continuously" ordered him to "Go back where you came from!” Because, you know, ghetto.

Saturday, July 20, 2019

Radio Free Europe reports what is basically a "Duh!" headline: "Ukraine's Constitutional Court Upholds Law Equating Communism To Nazism."

Ukraine's Constitutional Court has upheld a law that equates communism to Nazism and bans the dissemination of its symbols, a law that has prompted angry protests from Moscow.

In the July 16 ruling published on its website, the court said the "communist and Nazi regimes" used similar methods of "implementing repressive state policies."

"The communist regime, like the Nazi regime, inflicted irreparable damages to human rights because during its existence, it had total control over society and politically motivated persecutions and repressions, violated its international obligations, and its own constitutions and laws," it said.

The Russians have, of course, protested.

That Nazism and Communism were inherently contradictory is an invented, deliberate lie ...

And *why* would 'the Russians' protest?

Because the people who rule the Russian people are still leftists and statists ... and communists.

Friday, June 14, 2019

"Though recycling rarely makes economic sense and often burns up more fresh resources than would have been used in making new items, Americans recycled. And recycled. And recycle still."

An old friend from college unfriended me on Fascistbook because I tried to get him to see that truth.

By all means, recycle when it makes economic sense to do so, when the act of recycling does not consume more resources in total than can be recovered. And how does one *know* when recycling makes economic sense? Why, when it doesn't need to be subsidized by using the threat of government violence to take money from you and me to give to the politically-connected few who thereby profit from the scam.

Edit: I recycle aluminum cans. I store them in the basement for 6 months to a year, then toss them in the truck and take them to be recycled. If I fill the truck bed with (grocery) bags of *crushed* cans, I may get about $50 for ... collecting trash in my house for a year. And that's for something that *does* pay for itself to be recycled.

Friday, May 31, 2019

The question is not whether our laws shall be based upon some religious conception or other, but rather, *which* religious conception shall they be based upon? The question is not whether we shall be a theocracy, but rather *what sort* of theocracy shall we be? That is, toward *which* god shall our laws point?

The mistake of those panicked commentators [concerning recent mildly restrictive abortion laws] isn't that they think the ban on abortion is a theocratic move. That's more or less true. What they've missed, though, is that all politics is theological, including theirs.

The debate between pro-lifers and pro-choicers (and among different pro-choicers) has to do with when a fetus becomes a baby with moral rights. In other words, when does a bundle of cells become a person?

How you answer this depends on how you define human nature. This is a philosophical question - one of the oldest ones - relating to that branch of philosophy dealing with ultimate reality, metaphysics. It also touches on ethics, the philosophical project dedicated to answering the question: what are human persons supposed to do?

In other words, despite philosophy's reputation for abstraction and irrelevance, we find that all political beliefs are really philosophical beliefs.

"What they've missed, though, is that all politics is theological, including theirs."

They "miss" this deliberately. The secularists (leftists, "liberals", libertarians, etc) oppose "theocracy" only when the laws are based upon true/actual morality, and thus point toward the only God. One has only to look at what is going on in the world today to grasp that all their blather over the past century about "religious neutrality in government" was a head-fake: they were for "religious neutrality in government" only until *they* gained control and could impose *their* religious-and-moral conception upon the rest of us.

"... all politics is theological ..."

Religion and morality and politics are just different ways to ask, and to answer, the same questions: What do we *owe* one another? What may we *require* of one another? What may we *forbid* one another? What may we *compel* one another? And why? That is, what is the basis/grounding for the answers?

"How you answer this depends on how you define [i.e. 'conceive'] human nature."

And how you conceive human nature follows, inescapably, from how you conceive God.

Monday, May 6, 2019

Hey, "liberals" and "woke" "Christians", we conservatives and regular Christians have a compromise deal for you --

We'll stop supporting the political party whose main objective is to destroy the world when you stop supporting the political party whose main objectives are 1) to kill babies, and 2) to destroy America.

I commented -- "Welll .... I'm kind of torn. On the one hand, Muzzies murder women for the most absurd/petty things. On the other hand, most Western women dress like tramps because they *are* tramps; and they are tramps because most Western men have been brow-beat into believing that they have no right to expect/demand that women in their lives not be tramps."

And that was just too much for the delicate sensibilities of some damned snowflake leftist.

Thursday, April 18, 2019

I pass a Disciples of Christ church nearly every day. Recently, for Easter, they put up the slogan: "Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord. (*)"

Now, of course, the Biblical text is: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." (Psalm 118:26)

And Christ applied this to himself in Matthew 23:37-39 -- "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ " This is a horrible prophesy/curse against "Jerusalem" (i.e. Judaism, the Jews)

But, my point here is not the prophesy/curse that Christ pronounced, but rather the feminist/leftist twisting of the verse itself.

Feminism, like leftism in general, is rebellion against God. It is the attempt to dethrone God ... and claim his place.

To be sure, feminists (and leftists in general) hate men and masculinity. But, they also hate women and femininity. They hate the Image of God, as God created us: male and female; and they hate the Image of God because they hate God.

So eager are "woke" pseudo-Christians to denigrate masculinity (and femininity), that they are now trying to erase the masculinity of Jesus Christ.

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Wait! A "liberal" with a gun? And he (allegedly) pulled it on someone, for no real reason?

No wonder they want to use threat of government violence to disarm us -- they know that *they* are senselessly violent, and "liberals" *always* project their flaws onto others.

The above thought leads to what I think is an insight --

Conservatives, especially if Christian, know intellectually that all human beings are flawed ('sinful' in Biblical terms, "basically bad" in secular terms), and that human nature itself tends toward wickedness, and cannot be "fixed" by any human means: that "this is as good as it gets". YET, conservatives, especially if Christian, tend to assume the best of each new individual they encounter.

On the other hand, "liberals", "know" intellectually that all human beings are "basically good" -- that it's conditions external to the person which "causes" him to do bad things, and that human beings are perfectible if only the "right conditions" can be imposed on them. YET, "liberals" tend to assume the worst of each new individual they encounter.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Concerning the "jobs" temporarily furloughed by the government "shutdown" --

All jobs, everywhwere in the world, either generate wealth or consume wealth. Some jobs directly generate wealth. Some jobs merely consume -- destroy -- wealth created elsewhere. And some jobs (such as the ones I have often had) themselves directly consume wealth, but yet are still net wealth *preservers* because they make wealth-generating jobs more efficient or prevent loss (wealth-destruction) elsewhere.

Some jobs which merely consume wealth are nonetheless necessary.

There is no government job, anywhere in the world, which directly generates wealth. So, the two-fold question about any government jobs is:
1) "Does it preserve more wealth than it consumes?"
2) "If it merely consumes wealth, is it nonetheless necessary?"